Red Mosquito

Fascinating video.

Lennon.

Starr

You're a real shtickler, LV.

Well, for a little context, I don't really like The Beatles, so I don't really care about any of them.

The big thing is, both were reduced to mere normalcy by the loss of each other's influence and the filling in of the tremendous blank slate that the 1960's pop renaissance uncovered. They had the benefit of the right time, the right cowriter, the right success to justify the resource investment they needed, the right technological advances to recording and production, and a lack of precedence in pop record creation. So the real question is probably: what kind of band would they have been without all that?

For their work inside the Beatles as it stands, I have to go Paul. Too many of my favorite John songs were heavily impacted by Paul, whereas Lennon almost never had much to do with Paul songs at all.

Paul is the only highly skilled musician and consistent songwriter in the Beatles. He's also the only Beatle who didn't treat his wife and children like shit.

Lennon was a poser who wrote music just as fey and boring as McCartney at his worst, yet had the nerve to criticize McCartney for it, because he was an egomaniac.

Harrison is a joke. What did he do after "All Things Must Pass"? Nothing worth mentioning. Nothing that would have been popular if he wasn't a Beatle.

I will leave Ringo out of it.

Wendy Carlos's Twin wrote:Paul is the only highly skilled musician and consistent songwriter in the Beatles. He's also the only Beatle who didn't treat his wife and children like shit.

While I understand that the Beatles came up in the years before musician virtuousity became a key part of pop music, and that their playing tends to have more in common with the Crickets than with later bands like Cream, Hendrix, and Zeppelin....yeah, Paul's musicianship still really stands out as fantastic. Even his guitar solos, on songs like Taxman, are often standouts for me.

McParadigm wrote:Too many of my favorite John songs were heavily impacted by Paul, whereas Lennon almost never had much to do with Paul songs at all.

I keep coming back to this. If I were to list my favourite Beatles songs, probably around 70% of them would be Lennon songs. But when I think about those songs, Paul's contributions are often my favourite element (the bassline in Dear Prudence for example).

Within and without the Beatles I tend to favor Paul. However, Lennon has much greater high points lyrically. I'm just glad they met each other, wrote and recorded music together.

McParadigm wrote:

Wendy Carlos's Twin wrote:Paul is the only highly skilled musician and consistent songwriter in the Beatles. He's also the only Beatle who didn't treat his wife and children like shit.

While I understand that the Beatles came up in the years before musician virtuousity became a key part of pop music, and that their playing tends to have more in common with the Crickets than with later bands like Cream, Hendrix, and Zeppelin....yeah, Paul's musicianship still really stands out as fantastic. Even his guitar solos, on songs like Taxman, are often standouts for me.

I think that "Everybody's Got Something To Hide..." is about as close as they got. That's a really rockin' track.

Farmer John wrote:

McParadigm wrote:Too many of my favorite John songs were heavily impacted by Paul, whereas Lennon almost never had much to do with Paul songs at all.

I keep coming back to this. If I were to list my favourite Beatles songs, probably around 70% of them would be Lennon songs. But when I think about those songs, Paul's contributions are often my favourite element (the bassline in Dear Prudence for example).

Yeah, this.

Neat video, btw.

As far as they're work within the Beatles, it's hard to distinguish. But I tend to favor the songs that Lennon sings lead on. But, as McP said, McCartney had a much greater influence on Lennon's songs than Lennon did on McCartney's songs. But then, there's those few moments where Lennon nails it: like when he told Paul to keep "the movement you need is on your shoulder" in Hey Jude when Paul claimed it was a placeholder lyric. But then Paul is the one that told Lennon to burn the house down in Norwegian Wood.

But Lennon's solo work so far surpasses McCartney's (include Wings) for me that it just isn't a contest. I have to go with Lennon.

My co-worker just said (as we watched some of the OP video): "Of course, no one is going to lie and say McCartney. If they say that, they mean it. But you know some of these people would lie and say Lennon just to seem cool."

So there's that too.

Wendy Carlos's Twin wrote:
Harrison is a joke. What did he do after "All Things Must Pass"? Nothing worth mentioning. Nothing that would have been popular if he wasn't a Beatle.

handle with care

and a good bit of end of the line

While I acknowledge McCartney's gift, I refuse to play the dichotomy game between those two. Saying that Lennon was an inept musician/composer who got lucky is crazy talk. The guy wrote some absolute standards and his musical shortcomings often made his music highly original in a way not dissimilar to Syd Barrett's.
Of course McCartney was the most competent musician and most versatile composer and lyricist but one can't reasonably get past his often schmaltzy tendencies (mostly post-breakup) and his chronic inability to tap onto the actual zeitgeist. His flair for melodies is baffling yet The Beatles needed Lennon to break into their generation's consciousness with songs like Strawberry Fields, Walrus, Revolution, Come Together, etc.
Also, a lot of people didn't need McCartney to be really good. In fact, most musicians made their way without any help from McCartney and I'm pretty sure Lennon would have "made it" without him. Of course, he made the Beatles largely better and I kind of agree that he was their driving force from 1966 onwards but still, he's far from being the only seriously talented guy in the band. I just don't get that new myth, it's pretty silly.

i got bugs wrote:

Wendy Carlos's Twin wrote:
Harrison is a joke. What did he do after "All Things Must Pass"? Nothing worth mentioning. Nothing that would have been popular if he wasn't a Beatle.

handle with care

and a good bit of end of the line

Exactly. You had to team him up with four other geniuses to get anything decent out of him.

mastaflatch wrote:I'm pretty sure Lennon would have "made it" without him. Of course, he made the Beatles largely better and I kind of agree that he was their driving force from 1966 onwards but still, he's far from being the only seriously talented guy in the band. I just don't get that new myth, it's pretty silly.

Slow clap.

McCartney and it's not even close.

Lennon for me. Yer Blues, come together, I want you... awesomely dark stuff